Beginner What camera should I buy?

Alistair Wells

Alistair Wells

Suspended / Banned
Messages
73
Name
AliWELLS1
Edit My Images
No
Hi, I currently own a Fujifilm 16 megapixel camera and I'm getting great results with it. However, I feel I want to take my photography to another level by buying a new camera. I have been looking for bodies under £300. Second hand or new. I have discovered cameras such as the Canon 600D and Nikon D5100. Whilst researching these cameras. I found that they were classed as a "First time user camera". This I am not looking for as I want something that will take me to the next level. This lead me to look at second hand cameras on Ebay. I have now found a Canon 40D. It seems a good camera. But with only 10 megapixels. Do you think this will affect picture quality dramatically? Also, what would you recommend me buy under £300....the 40D or 600D and D5100.

Regards, Alistair
 
The 40D is a fantastic camera - solidly built with dual control dials. I've had mine for about 5 years and only upgraded this year to an X-Pro1, but I won't sell the 40D as I'll still use it for subjects when I need faster focussing or when I don't want to risk getting my newer camera getting mucky (I likeshooting the banger racing).

The one area of weakness in the 40D compared to newer bodies in this class is the low-light and high ISO performance. Up to ISO400 it's excellent, at 800 the noise starts to become obvious, very obvious at 1600 (but very usable in black and white where the noise has a good character without being obtrusive). Don't worry about the megapixel count, it really isn't very important.

Does that budget need to include a lens?
 
You really need to handle them to see which one feels right for you :)
It's surprising how different they feel once you get them in your mits....
 
40D would be a cracking body I had a 20D a while ago and it's a progression of that. With the Canon cameras less numbers mean they are aimed at different levels so XXXX is entry XXX up from that XX semi pro and X pro.

Please don't be sucked into the more megapixels the better the camera, it's a big fat marketing tool lie. What the newer camera will have though is better processing for higher ISO's and video recording. What type of shooting do you do?

I was at a wedding recently and a friend had a XXXX Canon, decent enough but it felt small, alot of the controls were missing (i.e there was an entire scroll wheel missing), this mean't going through the menus to change things that would be changed with the click of the wheel. After starting with an XX model, I'd be frustrated using the lower entry bodies, I probably wouldn't have known any different if I'd started at a lower point.

The 20D I had was my first DSLR because I wanted to see how I'd get on with using and carrying one around. It was great and had pretty much all the controls my 60D has now albeit with the 60D having a few more trick bits. It got stolen, but if it hadn't I'd have upgraded it at some point and kept the lenses that I'm still using now.

You could start as cheap as the 20D and see how you get on?
 
forget anything you read about camera bodies being beginner.. as i stated in a similar thread the difference between the cheapest APS-C DSLR and the most expensive is minimal to the extreme ( normally somewhere from 15-20MP of which 16 is plenty enough , and then basic things like higher iso and 6 frams per second as opposed to say 3fps ) Its a huge marketing ploy by the manufacturers to get you to upgrade your camera body.
The key element will always be the glass.. its no good buying a 60D or 70D canon if you just stick on basic kit lens glass ( not that theres anything wrong with it but in all honesty you will find very little difference between a 60D and say an 1100D using standard kit lens glass and will actually get better images with the 1100D using L series glass.
of course with a budget of £300 you arent going to get L series quality glass so for the time being will have to make do with what you can get.
consider what you want to shoot first and foremost ( macro, sports. portrait, wildlife or a combination of them ) and work out from that what your lens requirement is.
you could pick up a 600D for around £250 but that would be body only and leave you nothing for lenses.
hunt around on ebay and you can find a 550 with the very nice fast 40mm STM lens kit for £300
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Canon-EOS...Cameras_DigitalCameras_JN&hash=item3a907c2b36

or a 600D with basic 18-55 kit lens for around the same price.

to give an idea a handy side by side of the 500D, 550D and 600D
http://www.dpreview.com/products/co...products=canon_eos550d&products=canon_eos600d
 
Last edited:
My advice is to go for older better bodies. Not because of the specifications, but because they're just nicer to use. Having 2 control wheels is just nicer, as is having a full set of buttons to change commonly used functions. I hate going through camera menu systems, it can't be done without looking, whereas on a 'better' camera I can change all the things I generally need to with the camera at my eye. 10mpix is plenty, we're still using a 40d as our 3rd body.
 
dean messenger said:
forget anything you read about camera bodies being beginner..
Click to expand...

Maybe so, but that's the designation that's been given by the manufacturer. There has to be some distinction as there is with everything, cars, food, fishing rods. I wonder how a professional would get on with the best 'beginner' body which has marginal performance difference as you say in the rain at an event?
 
dean messenger said:
forget anything you read about camera bodies being beginner.. as i stated in a similar thread the difference between the cheapest APS-C DSLR and the most expensive is minimal to the extreme ( normally somewhere from 15-20MP of which 16 is plenty enough , and then basic things like higher iso and 6 frams per second as opposed to say 3fps ) Its a huge marketing ploy by the manufacturers to get you to upgrade your camera body.
Click to expand...

There's a massive difference between a semi-pro body and an entry-level body, but you're right in that none of the things you mention are part of that difference - nothing you mention is particularly important unless you're playing Top Trumps. Megapickles become a non-issue once you get to 10MP. FPS has it's place in sport/action photography but is otherwise a crutch for anyone that can't time a shot.

What is important and that you find in the semi-pro/prosumer bodies such as the 40D but not in the entry-level bodies are:

Better ergonomics
- dual control dials (entry-level bodies try and work two settings with one dial and a variety of push-and-turn thumb gymnastics)
- better control dial layout
- emphasis on the modes that matter (PASM) and not the point-and-shoot modes (scene modes)
- better focus points and better means of selecting them

Better build
- built for a longer working life
 
true but we arent talking professional here we are talking a photographer who wants to upgrade to esentially DSLR from a bridge/P&S camera. and as stated the difference between the lower end beginner to enthusiast level cameras is marginal.
hence why the need to consider what your shooting first as subject matter and consider what lenses you need.. good quality glass stays with you, boides get changed and upgraded are essentially and inherently much cheaper.
ALso when you consider how long the L series lenses have been around with little or no change and how often camera bodies are upgraded it makes more sense to think about and spend as much money as you can on quality glass rather than look at higher priced similar spec bodies.
 
I started with a canon 1000d but bought a sh 1d mkii which i`m very happy with
 
Unless you want/need more frames per second, dual control for Aperture and Shutter, (only really useful if shooting in Manual Mode a lot) and maybe better Auto Focus (mainly for things that are moving) any DSLR will enable you to get pictures.

Going to an older S/H camera may get you a DSLR with more direct controls, more FPS and possibly better AF (but not always), but you are probably doing that at the expense of high ISO performance, possibly a reduction in the number of pixels you are used to, and wear and tear.

A Nikon D3300 has twice the number of pixels of my D300S, and is a lot better in low light, but for me, who takes pics of all different things the AF, FPS and user interface are more important than pixels and ISO. If I just did Landscape or Portrait pics then I may think something different. I did buy my camera when it had the most pixels and best ISO on the market at the time though, ;) but newer cameras getting better in those areas is not enough for me to upgrade if I also can't get the other features of what I have now.

If you can define why you are going to a DSLR, and what features are important to you, you can narrow down what you want and what your options are given your budget.
 
redhed17 said:
dual control for Aperture and Shutter, (only really useful if shooting in Manual Mode a lot)
Click to expand...


Dual control dials are extremely useful in Av, Tv and M modes. The second control enables easy application of exposure compensation. From memory, even P mode makes use of the second control dial.

The only time that dual control dials aren't useful is in the point'n'click Scene modes.
 
Just a note of caution when buying older DSLR technology. As soon as you can, check the sensor by taking some photos. An older sensor can have faults indicated by a thin line or worse through all of the images. Additionally lots of DSLRs have been abused. Open up the aperture and take photos of a bright sky. Do you see little blotches on the images? Dirty sensor. It can usually be cleaned, but is best done professionally. I'm not against buying used DSLRs - I have been lucky with a Pentax K110D and a Sony A200. However the recent purchase of a Pentax K20D was less successful - sensor failure, returned quickly to seller.

EDIT: as pointed out below, I should have said stop the aperture down towards f22, not open it up, to check for sensor dirt.
 
Last edited:
As has been said, megapixels are not the only answer, but the quality of the lens and the size of the sensor recording it, but megapixels sounds better and marketing departments loves them as its something they can easily quantify.
 
andrewc said:
As has been said, megapixels are not the only answer, but the quality of the lens and the size of the sensor recording it
Click to expand...

In theory a larger sensor will give you lower noise, and a larger dynamic range, but it depends how far you go back.

Sensors get better with each new generation.

Be careful how far you go back, as the advantages you may be seeking may not be there. ;)
 
@ Alistair. I was under the impression it was experience that took you to the next level, not camera bodies, think I'll ditch my D5200 and start saving for the D810 ;)
 
Last edited:
of course experience and an eye for the image are essential elements, however having a quality camera and lenses helps ( once you have gained that experience.. put a £5000 camera in the hands of a complete fool and you'll still get rubbish images.. just of a better quality :P )

a skilled photographer will get the best oout of the equipment they are using but of course cameras ,sensors and glass all have there optimum limits of what can be achieved.
 
Bletch said:
@ Alistair. I was under the impression it was experience that took you to the next level, not camera bodies, think I'll ditch my D5200 and start saving for the D810 ;)
Click to expand...
Must be nice to have started out with a DSLR as your first camera @Bletch

Other people may have started out with a fixed lens compact/bridge with no manual controls..
 
XA2inmypocket said:
. Open up the aperture and take photos of a bright sky. Do you see little blotches on the images? Dirty sensor. It can usually be cleaned, but is best done professionally.
Click to expand...

what?? its not difficult to take a lens off and clean a sensor yourself. Its a pretty hard thing to damage as well.
 
XA2inmypocket said:
Additionally lots of DSLRs have been abused. Open up the aperture and take photos of a bright sky. Do you see little blotches on the images? Dirty sensor..
Click to expand...

I think you mean closing down the Aperture. The smaller Aperture, (higher f number) makes any spots that are there, more defined, and so easier to see.

A portrait photographer at very wide apertures most of the time may have to have a number of spots, or some very large spots, to be seen at very wide apertures as the camera focuses through them. ;)
 
I wouldn't class a dirty sensor as abuse - realistically its to be expected with interchangeable lenses to a greater or lesser degree - and even if you never take a lens off, not all are sealed. It can be minimised to some extent with precautions whilst changing lenses, but not eliminated.

Whilst its not too difficult to clean a sensor (or rather the filter over the sensor), its nerve-wracking the first time you do it, and I know several photographers earning money from their photography who would prefer to pay someone to do that job for them.
 
redhed17 said:
I think you mean closing down the Aperture. The smaller Aperture, (higher f number) makes any spots that are there, more defined, and so easier to see. ;)
Click to expand...
You are perfectly correct, and I apologise for giving out incorrect advice.

As for the other posters. I can only advise based on my experience. I have a Pentax K110D that has a dirty sensor that will not clean - and yes, I've used the correct sensor swipes and method. It is fine though at apertures over f/4. At f/11 or smaller, the spots are unbearable. I recently purchased a used Pentax K20D. Not only was the sensor dirty, but it was faulted with a "burnt out pixel" issue - a horizontal line scoring through the images.

That is why I recommend that a sensor is carefully accessed in time to return the camera to the seller.
 
andrewc said:
I wouldn't class a dirty sensor as abuse - realistically its to be expected with interchangeable lenses to a greater or lesser degree - and even if you never take a lens off, not all are sealed. It can be minimised to some extent with precautions whilst changing lenses, but not eliminated.
.
Click to expand...

That - and if you buy from a dealer like MPB or Camera jungle (others exist - too many to list) then they'll have cleaned the sensor anyway.

With regard to the OP - the 40D is an excellent body - but you can also get excellent deals on the 50D and 60D second hand now that the current model in the xxD line is the 70D. For example MPB have a number of 50Ds for under 300 notes. ( tbh even older models like the 20D and 30D offer a big step up from a bridge camera - and they are seriously cheap now)

I'm not knocking the xxxD line ( 450D or newer) as they'll still be a big step up from a bridge, but as said above the reason they are considered entry lebel is the build quality and the lack of intuitive controls with more setting buried in the menus. They are also smaller in the hand (althoughyou can compensate for this by adding a grip if you have big hands). Theres nothing wrong with the 500/550/600/650/700D per se - but i suspect that most people who go that route will upgrade to 40/50/60/70/7Ds in a few years - so you might want to skip that step and go straight to the xxD range.
 
I shoot weddings on a 5d mark iii and my finance shoots with a 550d as a second shooter. If the lighting is good then the images are great. I gladly use them in my gallery. So I think a 550d or something up from there will be great as a first slr :)
 
Regards the Nikon range, there are still some very nice "older" bodies that give you superb results.
If you can, buy a cheap secondhand body like the D60x or similar & pour the savings in to lenses.

Bodies will always lose money, glass not so much
 
Don't fall into the trap like I did. I thought get the next camera higher up in the range and that would suit me. That is until I out grew that camera and yearned for yet the next one up in the range. Better to go and get a more expensive camera beyond what you need at present and save having to part exchange and loose money each time. I went from the Nikon D70s to the D200 to the D300 to the D800 although I have kept the last two the D300 as a backup camera , but I lost loads on the previous upgrades. With a more expensive camera you can still start with the camera doing all the work setting wise and slowly take over the work yourself the more familiar you get with it
 
Last edited:
realspeed said:
Don't fall into the trap like I did. I thought get the next camera higher up in the range and that would suit me. That is until I out grew that camera and yearned for yet the next one up in the range. Better to go and get a more expensive camera beyond what you need at present and save having to part exchange and loose money each time. I went from the Nikon D70s to the D200 to the D300 to the D800 although I have kept the last two the D300 as a backup camera , but I lost loads on the previous upgrades. With a more expensive camera you can still start with the camera doing all the work setting wise and slowly take over the work yourself the more familiar you get with it
Click to expand...
Very good advice there bud.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top